Dave Crocker wrote:
What is the reason for Historic, rather than Informational?
I am prety sure that historic has never been applied to a specification that
was
not previously an IETF standard.
It's happened once before, somewhere in the 1xxx series. I forget which
document, but it was recently discussed on what I believe was the IETF
list, perhaps in one of the NEWTRK threads.
The usual means of labeling an RFC that
specifies a popular, proprietary protocol is Informational.
I view this as a short cut to publish this first, then publish DKIM with
the "Obsoletes:" header (and we should do both).
The question: is it better for this document to be published as an
historic RFC "now" or at the same time as the standards track DKIM
base RFC is published? (Where all timings here are modulo the RFC
editor's queuing discipline.)
same time. we have enough confusion in the market, as it is.
Agree.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html